Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
balanced deficit reduction package that will do enormous good to our economy. and the kind of package that i should not leave out, that includes targeted investments so our economy continues to grow and create jobs. it would, as i said on a number of occasions, deficit reduction in an of itself is not a goal, it should be part of an economic plan is that is focused on economic growth and job creation. the president is very focus odden that. >> just a second ago, you referred to, when talking about the debt ceiling, taking it off the table, to be part of the deal. you referred to the economy being held hostage. you're aware that president obama voted against -- >> we addressed that. there was no threat of default at the time. what happened in 2011, as we all know because we all lived it, most of us in this room, was the threat of default, a willingness expressed by many to see the american economy under default and with all the consequent impacts on the global economy and on the american middle class. . in order to do that and was enormously damaging to consumer confidence.
and boost the economy. mr. benishek: our nation is facing significant challenges. a weak economy, record deficits and a federal government we cannot afford. many northern michigan citizens fear for the future of our republic. the american people deserve solutions to these problems and comprehensive tax reform is a key part of these solutions. president obama has made it clear that his preference is to raise taxes on families and businesses, but that plan won't fix our national debt. it won't improve the economy. instead, congress should focus on tax reform and real significant spending reductions. the american people have chosen divided government, and with that comes a responsibility for us to work together and to fix the pro-our nation faces. i -- the problem our nation faces. i ask my colleagues to help resolve this fiscal crisis and do what's best for the american people. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speak
different elements of our economy deal with d.h.s. with support of others coming up with what would be best business practices and then if those best business practices were adopted by those within that element of the economy, they would get liability protection, liability immunity. now, some say, wait a second. that leads to a slippery slope that the government will come in and crash in on you. i don't know the perfect answer but i can trying for the lightest regulatory approach we could have. and those worried about the federal government coming in heavy-handed are truly concerned about that, they ought to think about this. if we have a successful cyberattack against a part of our critical infrastructure, my fear is that congress and whoever's present at the time will overreact because the public will require it. wouldn't it be better for us to anticipate it? wouldn't it be better for us to get ahead of the crises and then have a means by which we defend against it? we know we're not ever going to be totally 100% successful. so when it happens to diminish the impact on whatever critical i
on the american public as was mentioned in the last session, the economy is international in the way it was not in 1990. that is, we can talk in 1990 about raising corporate taxes and lowering the tax on dividends, for example, which was one of the policies suggested during the 1990s discussions that came in effect in 2003. that's just completely backwards today. that is to say corporations are facing international competition and downward pressures on taxes at the business level that are not faced by individuals op their receipts, and we would be better off today if we had a lower tax at the corporate level and much higher tax at the individual level rather than what we have now which is the opposite of that which brings me to another major lesson is do not let policy become hostage to deficit numbers. that is, you have to think hard about what policies will allow the united states to achieve growth needed of fair distribution of the tax burdens and spending programs that the united states is engaged in. adequate revenues to match the spending that we're going to have. there are dif
to it happening. there's also a consensus right and left it would be bad for the economy. so i think that when we are just looking at the tax component, there are certain things that we kev knitly -- definitely need to do. patching the a.m.t. for the first year is big. if we don't get a deal on the rest of the tax cuts until early 2013, i don't think that would be the worst thing for the economy. i do believe that it is kind of a little more of a slope. i do think that there is -- i think that the worst part of the fiscal cliff are going to be avoided, and beyond that i think that both sides if they don't come together then we have a lot more revenue, and then we could do something like tax reform on top of that higher revenue, which would still bring in some revenue, yet at the same time satisfy a lot of republican demands for possibly lower rates. again, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. right now i think we won't -- if there is going to be a deal in this lame duck session, we are not going to know until the very end. host: thank you, gentlemen. appreciate your helping us out with thi
market. it is just going to affect the economy the same as gas prices or food prices going up on the poor and middle class. life will go on. just like life has gone on for the rest of the united states of america. but right now, i think the state of politics is very sad because they're seen -- there seems to be more of a game to be played and positions, one party having the upper hand over the other. not much is going to get done. and you have too many extremes on each side to make things a lot more difficult to run. and it makes it difficult on the president as well. i'm optimistic that the president got reelected, but pessimistic on anything really changing. have leased, anytime soon. -- at least, any time soon. host: and talking about actual change, if there will be a difference on january 1st or otherwise, in terms of taxes, politics, the fiscal cliff, john mckinnon, are any of these expiring? as part of our fiscal cliff series, we're looking at the bush tax cuts that are set to expire unless congress acts, and we are looking at spending cuts. our deductions on the chopping block unle
forward, helping us revive this economy. we don't want to set them back. and so why not do what the senate did several months ago in passing a bill bipartisanly that protects the middle class from seeing their taxes raised? we only need a few dozen republicans, quite honestly, to get that done because we're about to sign a discharge petition that we are going to declare as democrats that we are ready to plass the middle class tax protection act which will make sure that middle-class families do not watch their taxes go up simply because republicans are intent on protecting millionaires and billionaires and are holding middle-class families hostage to that increasing tax. we believe we can end december, certainly before the holidays on a really good note, maybe still having some disagreement but at least let's agree that we're not going to let the american people watch congress play this game of chicken right before the holidays where the american people are the hostages when we know that we have bipartisan agreement on protecting the middle class. and so we are thrilled that mr. walz has t
group and give to the other. some say go to the clinton tax rate. we had a booming economy and creating more jobs. if increasing taxes increases economic activity, why don't we go to a 95% tax rate and then we'll really have a booming economy? the reason that no one proposes that is because no one really believes that. that's why the accelerated tax rate that's being recommended by the white house is also being proposed by another stimulus plan, a spending plan. here's the example that i can talk about with this. when people talk about just raise taxes in the upper 2%, well, here's an example of what's being proposed by the president. capital gains will go to 28.3%. dividends will go from 15% to 43.4%. now, i have a lot of people that will say to me, just raise it on the upper bracket. but when i tell them, can i tell you what that means? their taxes go from 15% to 43.4%, i have yet someone stop me and say, that's fair. it sounds so much easier to say, raise it on someone else, not on us. we have to solve the problem. just raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. we're spending $1 trill
disasters. that's precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able to pay the full cost of recovery. they need money, personnel and assistance, but that doesn't mean a permanent entitlement to risky behavior. the federal government should deal with what is truly catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. families obviously should not be less destitute, hungry and homeless in the aftermath of natural disaster. there is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition of these terrible events. in a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should include government disaster spending, liability and development policy as we address the fiscal cliff. done right this will not only save money but countless lives as well. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth, for five minutes. ms. hayworth: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, all work in congress during these final weeks of 2012 is focused on the fiscal cliff. we're worried and rightly so about what it means to our economy, to our future, to the daily lives r
are the impediments to that? we have an economy that aren't creating enough of those middle-class jobs and we don't have enough people with skills to do those jobs and there are a lot of people that fall into those categories. access to education and the impediments i faced in my own life to education and how impossible it would have been for us to go to college if there weren't pell grants and student loans. it's the social realities and social changes that have occurred. you can't separate economic well-being from their social well-being. there are many young kids in america that are growing up in difficult circumstances raised by heroic parent, a grandmother in substandard housing, poor nutrition and schools that are failing. those kids are going to struggle. they don't go to after-school activities because the paints can't afford the fees. can you succeed? there are parents out there doing amazing things and will be the first ones to tell you, it is hard, but we can't be the country we need to be if we don't address that. government can have a role but civil society has a bigger role and we s
with what our expectation is in terms of how the economy is going to perform and what will happen to the trajectory of house prices. in an environment where the economy is strong, house prices in most markets are, at worst, flat, generally rising. i would agree that borrowers will be accumulating down payment, reasonably steady income. the risks of default are manageable, covered with in the premiums. the problem is we feel we are in an environment of slower economic growth. there is not a lot of when under the sales, which means that the possibility that you can have recession is more likely because you're starting from a lower growth rate. house prices may be on a much flatter trajectory. then it is a question about whether the low down payment program is necessarily the best, even for the borrower. when you factor in -- and here is where downpayment does matter, because it is the culmination of a bar or -- the combination of a borrower, that is the determination of whether you get a default. the possibility that house prices decline in your market. house prices are very sensiti
. in conclusion, the bill will benefit our nation's economy by helping american innovators and businesses better protect their inventions overseas. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we have no other speakers on this side. i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 3486. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 2367, the 21st century language act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2367, an act to strike the word lunatic from
or programming computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of our economy. not -- yes, in stem, but not just in stem. so we are asked to choose. asked to choose between people with graduate degree who we want to keep here in science, technology, engineering, and math. in many cases, if they're not allowed to stay, they will have to return to other countries and the jobs will follow them, costing our country jobs. choose between them and allowing people here from countries other than mexico, india, and china. some of whom are high skilled, some of whom are low skilled, divorce group across the board and looking back at many of our own forebears, certainly mine mitigating circumstance family came to this country in the late 19th century and early 20th century, 1890's, 1905. they didn't have master's degrees they zrntpampede's they didn't have college degrees. and that's the case for many of our forebears. and here today their great grandson sits as a member of congress. and had a program then existed whereby they could arrive nellliss island and be here, i wouldn't be he
as anyone. i have sales for wal green's and cvs. that's tough to do in today's economy. $10,000. so that's why it's so interesting. look out here. of the -- almost 21 million tax returns filed, only 14 of them ended up having a tax associated with them, 425,000 were itemized. now i want you to think about that, mr. speaker. you know, most americans don't itemize on their taxes. they have the standard exemption, the standard deduction. most americans take that. even homeowners. of course, the mortgage interest deduction is the largest itemized deduction that most american families take followed by the charitable deduction. but most american families don't itemize at all. so you have to ask yourself, mr. speaker. who are the folks who are reporting under $10,000 a year in income who are doing all this itemizing? it's about 30-1. even down here among the richest of americans, mr. speaker, it's 1-1. 30-1. folks are gaming this tax code, gaming this tax code to participate not at all in the funding of our government. and when we get together here to try to think about how we take care of the
for the overall economy, but the impact on women and children and some of our most vulnerable would be devastating, and that's why your particular focus today in special order is so important. the united states currently ranks about 50th in the world in infant mortality. and morocco, 1.8 infants under one year of age, they die for every 1,000 live births each year. in japan the number is 2.2. in the united states, to our shame, the number is six. from new zealand to all other advanced countries around the world, they do much better than the united states in this most fundamental measure of health and well-being. and the people who are most affected by this failure are not those who have been irresponsible, they are not slackers, they are not lazy, they are babies. they are babies. mostly babies who have been born into poverty. this is a metric that we should feel morally bound to improve by leaps and bounds. but instead we are about to make it worse for these babies. if we don't act, and if we don't act swiftly to prevent sequestration. if this congress does not act to prevent this country from pl
helping the palestinian people who have many challenges to get a good economy and a rule of law nation established on the west bank. but i cannot along with my colleagues in good conscience send $1 billion to an organization who is trying to use the political will of the united nations and the international criminal court to undermine the last, best chance for peace. being a military person myself, i will not sit on the sidelines and use american dollars in a situation where the palestinians can make every idf member a war criminal simply by defending the sovereignty of the state of israel. in the last conflict, there were over 1000 rockets fired into israel. to the american people, what would we do with one rocket hit american soil? not only has the israeli military been measured, you have to romer -- remember they left gaza. hamas is a terrorist organization and now last best partner in the peace process has but the american people and congress in an untenable situation by going around the process, petitioning the united nations to set up the international criminal court to marginali
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16